Short Answer: No. Long Answer: Evolution is based upon rational theory. Creationism is not. It doesn't matter what you believe in. If you believe that everybody will explode some day, go ahead, but they aren't going to teach you that everybody will explode some day in school. Why? It'd be basically lying, since when you're asked to back up your belief you can't give solid evidence or theory. Same applies here. School is a place of knowledge and theory, lets keep it that way.

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: Evolution is based upon rational theory. Creationism is not. It doesn't matter what you believe in. If you believe that everybody will explode some day, go ahead, but they aren't going to teach you that everybody will explode some day in school. Why? It'd be basically lying, since when you're asked to back up your belief you can't give solid evidence or theory. Same applies here. School is a place of knowledge and theory, lets keep it that way.

I think ideas like creationism and evolution should perhaps be touched briefly during elementary, middle, and highschool, but I don't think they should be taught in depth, or anything. I say leave that for secondary schools, or something. I don't think you should have to force anybody into having to believe into something they don't want to. However, I agree, Evolutionism definately has more of a solid explanation, and is more suitable to be taught than something like Creationism :\

I think ideas like creationism and evolution should perhaps be touched briefly during elementary, middle, and highschool, but I don't think they should be taught in depth, or anything. I say leave that for secondary schools, or something. I don't think you should have to force anybody into having to believe into something they don't want to. However, I agree, Evolutionism definately has more of a solid explanation, and is more suitable to be taught than something like Creationism :\

As long as people use their heads, whatever one is right will come through in the end. People don't use their heads when they're hunkered down in the trenches over these issues. That goes for the atheists as well. Simple fact is that no one has enough real information to rightly choose a side yet. So anyone that chooses a side either way is automatically wrong until [I]proven [/I]otherwise (which isn't something we're gonna do any time soon). But points go to religions for at least providing the defense that "proof" is not applicable, though. :lol: But really, it's all [URL=http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=0PBF10060BC-Skub.jpg#11]skub[/URL] to me.

As long as people use their heads, whatever one is right will come through in the end. People don't use their heads when they're hunkered down in the trenches over these issues. That goes for the atheists as well. Simple fact is that no one has enough real information to rightly choose a side yet. So anyone that chooses a side either way is automatically wrong until proven otherwise (which isn't something we're gonna do any time soon).

But points go to religions for at least providing the defense that "proof" is not applicable, though.


But really, it's all skub to me.

[quote=Yoshi da Sniper]School is a place of knowledge and theory, lets keep it that way.[/quote] And it's also a place of learning about various cultures, practices, and history in life. There is a difference between [I]learning [/I]about something and [I]believing [/I]in something. Contrary to what felagund has said in his very first post, I believe this issue should NOT be an important question to society because like I've said earlier, you learn about things but believe only what you want to believe. Unlike politics, this is an issue that affects you and only you and noone else. If something like creationism seems ridiculous, don't believe in it. However if someone else believes in it, just exactly what are you going to do? Let him believe in w/e he or she believes in. Unless he or she constantly preaches it upon you, them believing in something different from you should not affect you in any way. Politics on the otherhand is different; it affects every single person living in a country and if you truly believe in something that goes against how the current political system works, you'd do everything you can to try to turn things your way since it affects you. Btw I do not believe in creationism, but I have yet to see a single good reason for why creationism should [I]or [/I]should not be taught in schools (and when I say this, I assume the matter is whether creationism is to be taught as an elective or history, not science).

Quote from Yoshi da Sniper

School is a place of knowledge and theory, lets keep it that way.

And it's also a place of learning about various cultures, practices, and history in life. There is a difference between learning about something and believing in something.


Contrary to what felagund has said in his very first post, I believe this issue should NOT be an important question to society because like I've said earlier, you learn about things but believe only what you want to believe. Unlike politics, this is an issue that affects you and only you and noone else. If something like creationism seems ridiculous, don't believe in it. However if someone else believes in it, just exactly what are you going to do? Let him believe in w/e he or she believes in. Unless he or she constantly preaches it upon you, them believing in something different from you should not affect you in any way. Politics on the otherhand is different; it affects every single person living in a country and if you truly believe in something that goes against how the current political system works, you'd do everything you can to try to turn things your way since it affects you.

Btw I do not believe in creationism, but I have yet to see a single good reason for why creationism should or should not be taught in schools (and when I say this, I assume the matter is whether creationism is to be taught as an elective or history, not science).

[quote=MillenniumArmy][quote=Yoshi da Sniper]School is a place of knowledge and theory, lets keep it that way.[/quote] And it's also a place of learning about various cultures, practices, and history in life. There is a difference between [I]learning [/I]about something and [I]believing [/I]in something.[/quote]The only difference is when you disagree or attempt to argue it, with some teachers it will get personal.

Quote from MillenniumArmy

Quote from Yoshi da Sniper

School is a place of knowledge and theory, lets keep it that way.

And it's also a place of learning about various cultures, practices, and history in life. There is a difference between learning about something and believing in something.

The only difference is when you disagree or attempt to argue it, with some teachers it will get personal.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar]So anyone that chooses a side either way is automatically wrong until proven otherwise (which isn't something we're gonna do any time soon).[/quote] I'm not sure whether I would call them wrong or not, it's just that they have the burden of proof. Agnosticism ftw.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

So anyone that chooses a side either way is automatically wrong until proven otherwise (which isn't something we're gonna do any time soon).

I'm not sure whether I would call them wrong or not, it's just that they have the burden of proof. Agnosticism ftw.

It's not shameful to admit that you don't know everything. In fact, at least most agnostics are simply telling the truth that they don't know for certain, but that's for another discussion. However, can we all agree that intelligent design definitely shouldn't be taught in a science classroom? And if it were taught as an elective, I'd like it to be taught with other theories about the creation of the universe. In fact, the entire big bang theory isn't really taught in science (at least, it wasn't when I was in school). Then again, having a bunch of other theories (scientific ones) would essentially make the entire curriculum science oriented in nature. What else would you like to be taught in a class with intelligent design being discussed?

It's not shameful to admit that you don't know everything. In fact, at least most agnostics are simply telling the truth that they don't know for certain, but that's for another discussion.

However, can we all agree that intelligent design definitely shouldn't be taught in a science classroom? And if it were taught as an elective, I'd like it to be taught with other theories about the creation of the universe. In fact, the entire big bang theory isn't really taught in science (at least, it wasn't when I was in school). Then again, having a bunch of other theories (scientific ones) would essentially make the entire curriculum science oriented in nature. What else would you like to be taught in a class with intelligent design being discussed?

In a class where intelligent design were taught, I would like the flying spaghetti monster to be taught as well. It would be interesting to teach students the similarities between the two.

In a class where intelligent design were taught, I would like the flying spaghetti monster to be taught as well. It would be interesting to teach students the similarities between the two.

[quote=devilesk]In a class where intelligent design were taught, I would like the flying spaghetti monster to be taught as well. It would be interesting to teach students the similarities between the two.[/quote] All hail the flying spaghetti monster!

Quote from devilesk

In a class where intelligent design were taught, I would like the flying spaghetti monster to be taught as well. It would be interesting to teach students the similarities between the two.

All hail the flying spaghetti monster!

[quote=devilesk][quote=Tuxedo-Templar]So anyone that chooses a side either way is automatically wrong until proven otherwise (which isn't something we're gonna do any time soon).[/quote] I'm not sure whether I would call them wrong or not, it's just that they have the burden of proof. Agnosticism ftw.[/quote] Innocent until [b]proven[/b] guilty. That's kinda my logic behind many things. Most people don't have the patience for that kind of logic, though. [quote=Yoshi da Sniper][quote=devilesk]In a class where intelligent design were taught, I would like the flying spaghetti monster to be taught as well. It would be interesting to teach students the similarities between the two.[/quote] All hail the flying spaghetti monster![/quote] [url=http://www.venganza.org/][img]http://www.sivacracy.net/archives/fsm_1.jpg[/img][/url]

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

So anyone that chooses a side either way is automatically wrong until proven otherwise (which isn't something we're gonna do any time soon).

I'm not sure whether I would call them wrong or not, it's just that they have the burden of proof. Agnosticism ftw.

Innocent until proven guilty. That's kinda my logic behind many things. Most people don't have the patience for that kind of logic, though.

Quote from Yoshi da Sniper

Quote from devilesk

In a class where intelligent design were taught, I would like the flying spaghetti monster to be taught as well. It would be interesting to teach students the similarities between the two.

All hail the flying spaghetti monster!

[QUOTE]Innocent until proven guilty. That's kinda my logic behind many things. Most people don't have the patience for that kind of logic, though.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]So anyone that chooses a side either way is automatically wrong until proven otherwise[/QUOTE] There is a fault in your wording and in turn it distorts what you're saying here. What you're really saying is, [B]no one is right until proven otherwise[/B]. That, I can agree with. But, you're kind of missing the point. The point is not who is right and who is wrong in a matter like this, it is strictly down to opinion. All that we can do is choose the option that has the most rationally logical reasoning for it, and the most evidence underneath it. In my opinion, I believe it is pretty clear that not teaching creationism in a science class is the aforementioned option, and only makes sense to be taught as an elective (if at all) in high school, where the student chooses their classes, and is old enough to understand what is being taught to them. Do you see my point? Add: Flying Spaghetti Monster ftw!

Quote

Innocent until proven guilty. That's kinda my logic behind many things. Most people don't have the patience for that kind of logic, though.

Quote

So anyone that chooses a side either way is automatically wrong until proven otherwise

There is a fault in your wording and in turn it distorts what you're saying here. What you're really saying is, no one is right until proven otherwise. That, I can agree with. But, you're kind of missing the point. The point is not who is right and who is wrong in a matter like this, it is strictly down to opinion. All that we can do is choose the option that has the most rationally logical reasoning for it, and the most evidence underneath it. In my opinion, I believe it is pretty clear that not teaching creationism in a science class is the aforementioned option, and only makes sense to be taught as an elective (if at all) in high school, where the student chooses their classes, and is old enough to understand what is being taught to them. Do you see my point?

Add: Flying Spaghetti Monster ftw!

Bah to wording. That's why I never plan on being a lawyer or anything like that. I prefer, you know, common sense. Ok, yes I know wording is [i]technically[/i] important. In any case, if I were to make a choice on this matter, I'd just say teach them both objectively. That way no one loses and everyone can just stfu about it until someone has some real proof. :P

Bah to wording. That's why I never plan on being a lawyer or anything like that. I prefer, you know, common sense.


Ok, yes I know wording is technically important. In any case, if I were to make a choice on this matter, I'd just say teach them both objectively. That way no one loses and everyone can just stfu about it until someone has some real proof.

[QUOTE] Your consistently faulty reasoning, interpretations and assumptions of other people's posts are your "tactics"[/QUOTE] How can they be tactics if they don't help my argument? Anyways, this is getting repetitive. Here's how it is: I misunderstood his post, my posts therefore don't apply, the end. I've already said this several times, there's not much to be argued anymore.

Quote

Your consistently faulty reasoning, interpretations and assumptions of other people's posts are your "tactics"

How can they be tactics if they don't help my argument?

Anyways, this is getting repetitive. Here's how it is: I misunderstood his post, my posts therefore don't apply, the end. I've already said this several times, there's not much to be argued anymore.

[quote=PwnPirate][QUOTE] Your consistently faulty reasoning, interpretations and assumptions of other people's posts are your "tactics"[/QUOTE] How can they be tactics if they don't help my argument?[/quote] Even if they don't help your argument they're still tactics nonetheless.

Quote from PwnPirate

Quote

Your consistently faulty reasoning, interpretations and assumptions of other people's posts are your "tactics"

How can they be tactics if they don't help my argument?

Even if they don't help your argument they're still tactics nonetheless.

[QUOTE] Tactics, noun: A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.[/QUOTE] What would be my goal even if I were making mistakes on purpose?

Quote

Tactics, noun: A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

What would be my goal even if I were making mistakes on purpose?

[quote=PwnPirate][QUOTE] Tactics, noun: A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.[/QUOTE] What would be my goal even if I were making mistakes on purpose?[/quote] The definition says nothing about the end, aim, or goal being achieved through the use of the tactic. A tactic is only something that is "engaged in to achieve." And if your goal isn't to make a valid point/argument then you shouldn't even be posting. If you were making mistakes on purpose then I'd say your goal would be to just spam and bring down the quality of this topic.

Quote from PwnPirate

Quote

Tactics, noun: A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

What would be my goal even if I were making mistakes on purpose?

The definition says nothing about the end, aim, or goal being achieved through the use of the tactic. A tactic is only something that is "engaged in to achieve." And if your goal isn't to make a valid point/argument then you shouldn't even be posting. If you were making mistakes on purpose then I'd say your goal would be to just spam and bring down the quality of this topic.

Since Schools (public schools) follow the scientific method, Creationism should NOT be taught. However, it should be dealt with and talked about (and be proven wrong too). For Catholic schools.. then maybe u can teach Creationism.. But still that'd kind of confuse the child when he/she goes to public school/college/University. Of course.. It is up to you what to believe.. But the evidence of Evolution is out there...

Since Schools (public schools) follow the scientific method, Creationism should NOT be taught.
However, it should be dealt with and talked about (and be proven wrong too). For Catholic schools.. then maybe u can teach Creationism.. But still that'd kind of confuse the child when he/she goes to public school/college/University.

Of course.. It is up to you what to believe.. But the evidence of Evolution is out there...

[quote=UnholyUrine]Since Schools (public schools) follow the scientific method, Creationism should NOT be taught. However, it should be dealt with and talked about (and be proven wrong too). For Catholic schools.. then maybe u can teach Creationism.. But still that'd kind of confuse the child when he/she goes to public school/college/University. Of course.. It is up to you what to believe.. But the evidence of Evolution is out there...[/quote] Sure, it may be possible to prove wrong the versions that conflict, but it is impossible to prove wrong the versions that do not. For example, some believe that God may have helped some of the natural processes go the right way so that there would be an inhabitable planet and also guided evolution along the way. These people who believe this also do not believe the Bible literally means 6 Earth days when it says that it all took 6 days.

Quote from UnholyUrine

Since Schools (public schools) follow the scientific method, Creationism should NOT be taught.
However, it should be dealt with and talked about (and be proven wrong too). For Catholic schools.. then maybe u can teach Creationism.. But still that'd kind of confuse the child when he/she goes to public school/college/University.

Of course.. It is up to you what to believe.. But the evidence of Evolution is out there...

Sure, it may be possible to prove wrong the versions that conflict, but it is impossible to prove wrong the versions that do not. For example, some believe that God may have helped some of the natural processes go the right way so that there would be an inhabitable planet and also guided evolution along the way. These people who believe this also do not believe the Bible literally means 6 Earth days when it says that it all took 6 days.

[quote=ShadowFlare]For example, some believe that God may have helped some of the natural processes go the right way so that there would be an inhabitable planet and also guided evolution along the way. These people who believe this also do not believe the Bible literally means 6 Earth days when it says that it all took 6 days.[/quote] Are you one of those people? If we assume that claim cannot be proven false, is it not still worthless as a tool of inquiry? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg1kJJ-5Bg4 In order to be useful, a hypotheses must make novel testable predictions, this is part of why string theory is not taken seriously(and should not really be called a theory). This comic sums it up quite well: http://xkcd.com/171/ Now, the rhetoric of intelligent design is none of this. If you think intelligent design is science, or even a hypotheses, I encourage you to read about the dover trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District The churchgoing republican Judge Jones said in conclusion, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Intelligent design is not a viable scientific hypotheses, and thus the only way to get it into a science class was via politics, instead of scientific consensus, it was shut down for hopefully obvious reasons.

Quote from ShadowFlare

For example, some believe that God may have helped some of the natural processes go the right way so that there would be an inhabitable planet and also guided evolution along the way. These people who believe this also do not believe the Bible literally means 6 Earth days when it says that it all took 6 days.

Are you one of those people? If we assume that claim cannot be proven false, is it not still worthless as a tool of inquiry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg1kJJ-5Bg4

In order to be useful, a hypotheses must make novel testable predictions, this is part of why string theory is not taken seriously(and should not really be called a theory). This comic sums it up quite well:
http://xkcd.com/171/

Now, the rhetoric of intelligent design is none of this. If you think intelligent design is science, or even a hypotheses, I encourage you to read about the dover trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
The churchgoing republican Judge Jones said in conclusion, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Intelligent design is not a viable scientific hypotheses, and thus the only way to get it into a science class was via politics, instead of scientific consensus, it was shut down for hopefully obvious reasons.

[QUOTE] The definition says nothing about the end, aim, or goal being achieved through the use of the tactic. A tactic is only something that is "engaged in to achieve." And if your goal isn't to make a valid point/argument then you shouldn't even be posting. If you were making mistakes on purpose then I'd say your goal would be to just spam and bring down the quality of this topic.[/QUOTE] If my goal was to make a valid point, it wouldn't be tactful to make mistakes, therefore they wouldn't be tactics. If my goal wasn't to make a valid point and I just wanted to spam, I wouldn't be making an argument in the first place. Your idea doesn't work in both ways. With your definition, absolutely every action is a tactic, which it isn't. A tactic can only be defined when one person is trying to get an edge over another person, which obviously isn't the case here, I was just presenting my ideas and they were refuted (which I have mentioned several times now). You are trying to win an argument which I have constantly said that I've withdrawn anyways. If not, you are attempting to argue with me about my own thoughts, and I've tried to end this argument a couple times so don't blame me when you find out this argument is useless.

Quote

The definition says nothing about the end, aim, or goal being achieved through the use of the tactic. A tactic is only something that is "engaged in to achieve." And if your goal isn't to make a valid point/argument then you shouldn't even be posting. If you were making mistakes on purpose then I'd say your goal would be to just spam and bring down the quality of this topic.

If my goal was to make a valid point, it wouldn't be tactful to make mistakes, therefore they wouldn't be tactics. If my goal wasn't to make a valid point and I just wanted to spam, I wouldn't be making an argument in the first place. Your idea doesn't work in both ways. With your definition, absolutely every action is a tactic, which it isn't.
A tactic can only be defined when one person is trying to get an edge over another person, which obviously isn't the case here, I was just presenting my ideas and they were refuted (which I have mentioned several times now). You are trying to win an argument which I have constantly said that I've withdrawn anyways. If not, you are attempting to argue with me about my own thoughts, and I've tried to end this argument a couple times so don't blame me when you find out this argument is useless.